Audio Transcript Auto-generated
- 00:01 - 00:04
in this presentation, we will take a look at some
- 00:04 - 00:07
specific landmark cases in special education.
- 00:12 - 00:15
There have been several cases in special education that have
- 00:15 - 00:19
shaped the educational rights students with disabilities have today.
- 00:20 - 00:23
There are several cases that have played a critical role
- 00:23 - 00:26
in establishing laws to protect the rights of students with
- 00:26 - 00:32
disabilities. In this presentation, we are going to look at
- 00:32 - 00:37
three landmark cases First, starting with the Burlington School Committee
- 00:37 - 00:41
vs Massachusetts Department of Education in 1985.
- 00:43 - 00:45
Next, we'll move on to the over T vs.
- 00:46 - 00:52
Clement in Case in 1993, and then we will end
- 00:53 - 00:57
with the deal versus Hamilton County Board of Education In
- 00:58 - 01:03
2004. Okay, Okay, let's first take a look at the
- 01:03 - 01:09
Burlington School Committee vs Massachusetts Department of Education of 1985.
- 01:11 - 01:14
The plaintiff in this case is the Burlington School Committee
- 01:15 - 01:18
and the defendant is the massachusetts Department of Education.
- 01:19 - 01:23
Some background on this case is that Michael Panico was
- 01:23 - 01:27
a third grade student with a specific learning disability who
- 01:27 - 01:28
really struggled in school.
- 01:29 - 01:30
When his I.
- 01:30 - 01:33
P. Meeting was held, the school decided to place him
- 01:33 - 01:36
at another school that could provide him with the support
- 01:36 - 01:36
he needed.
- 01:38 - 01:41
After this decision was made, Michael's parents decided to consult
- 01:42 - 01:47
with an outside specialist, recommended placing him at a specialized
- 01:47 - 01:52
school. The parents placed him as a specialized school and
- 01:52 - 01:54
plate and paid out of pocket.
- 01:56 - 01:59
The problem with this case is the Panico has had
- 01:59 - 02:04
to fund the tuition and other expensive or the school
- 02:04 - 02:07
since they chose a school different from what has been
- 02:08 - 02:14
recommended by the town, the outcome was, the court decided
- 02:15 - 02:16
the placement at the school.
- 02:17 - 02:20
The parents decided to send Michael to was more appropriate
- 02:21 - 02:26
and order the Department of Education reimburse the Chronicles for
- 02:26 - 02:31
transportation, tuition and fees the parents covered out of pocket
- 02:32 - 02:35
and that they also continue to pay the continuation of
- 02:35 - 02:36
Michael's enrollment.
- 02:37 - 02:40
Children with disabilities are required by law to have access
- 02:41 - 02:44
to a free and pro an appropriate public education.
- 02:45 - 02:47
The parents on this case because they put their son
- 02:48 - 02:51
in a school that was the most appropriate placement available
- 02:51 - 02:51
to them.
- 02:52 - 02:54
Yeah. Mhm.
- 02:57 - 02:59
Next, let's take a look at the over T.
- 02:59 - 03:01
Vs. Clementine case of 1993.
- 03:03 - 03:05
The plaintiffs in this case where the parents of Rafael
- 03:06 - 03:09
Ortiz, I'm a defendant was the girl.
- 03:10 - 03:18
The girl of the moment in school district background on
- 03:18 - 03:19
this case is Rafael.
- 03:20 - 03:24
Over T was a hinder garden student who displayed behavioral
- 03:24 - 03:28
problems at school as a solution to his behaviors.
- 03:28 - 03:31
The teacher modified some of his assignments.
- 03:32 - 03:37
The school did not provide Rafael within the supplementary aid
- 03:37 - 03:40
or services to support his behavioral needs.
- 03:41 - 03:44
This all decided the best placement was in special education.
- 03:47 - 03:48
Here is the conflict.
- 03:50 - 03:54
The district argued that Rafael could not be mainstreamed due
- 03:54 - 03:57
to his behaviors and decided to place them in a
- 03:57 - 03:58
special education classes.
- 04:00 - 04:00
The over T.
- 04:00 - 04:05
Family and their representatives argued that he could be mainstreamed
- 04:05 - 04:09
if he had the proper supplemental support and services.
- 04:12 - 04:12
Uh huh.
- 04:14 - 04:17
The outcome was the over T family won the case
- 04:18 - 04:20
as a result of this case, the over T test
- 04:21 - 04:21
was developed.
- 04:23 - 04:25
The over to test is a two part test to
- 04:25 - 04:28
determine whether or not a school district meets the Ellery
- 04:29 - 04:30
requirements under I.
- 04:30 - 04:31
D. E.
- 04:31 - 04:36
A. The first question to ask is can the student
- 04:37 - 04:41
be educated in a general education classroom with AIDS and
- 04:41 - 04:43
support? If yes.
- 04:43 - 04:46
Then the school must provide the AIDS and services.
- 04:47 - 04:48
If no.
- 04:48 - 04:51
Then the student should be placed with students without disabilities
- 04:52 - 04:54
to the maximum extent possible.
- 04:58 - 05:03
Yeah. And lastly, we'll get the Deal versus Hamilton County
- 05:03 - 05:05
Board of Education case of 2004.
- 05:07 - 05:10
The plaintiffs in this case are Marine and Philip deal.
- 05:11 - 05:13
The bills are parents to Zachary.
- 05:13 - 05:15
Deal with the student with ought to them.
- 05:16 - 05:18
The defendant in this case is the Board of Education
- 05:19 - 05:20
of Hamilton County.
- 05:21 - 05:24
Some background on this case is that Zachary Deal was
- 05:24 - 05:28
a student with a disability that required additional support.
- 05:29 - 05:32
Zachary's parents provided him with the 1-1 a.
- 05:33 - 05:33
b. a.
- 05:33 - 05:35
program where he made exceptional progress.
- 05:37 - 05:40
The Jill's asked to school to pay for the A.
- 05:40 - 05:40
B. A.
- 05:41 - 05:47
Program. The conflict was that the school district denied the
- 05:47 - 05:50
parents request for 1 to 1 A v.
- 05:50 - 05:53
A. Program and offered to put Zachary in their special
- 05:54 - 05:54
education program.
- 05:56 - 06:01
The school district predetermined this child's placement regardless of the
- 06:01 - 06:03
of the progress he had made in his A.
- 06:03 - 06:03
B. A.
- 06:04 - 06:08
Program. The school system also failed to provide related services
- 06:09 - 06:13
of physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy to the
- 06:13 - 06:19
factory. The outcome of this case was, the school district
- 06:20 - 06:22
was ordered to reimburse the deals for the A.
- 06:23 - 06:23
V. A.
- 06:23 - 06:26
Program and any out of pocket costs the dill spent
- 06:27 - 06:27
for the related services.
- 06:29 - 06:32
The court decided that the school district has failed to
- 06:32 - 06:37
provide Zachary with a free and appropriate public education, also
- 06:38 - 06:43
known as Faith and Zachary's least restrictive environment or L.
- 06:43 - 06:43
R. E.
- 06:44 - 06:46
By predetermining his placement.
- 06:47 - 06:50
Yeah, okay.
- 06:52 - 06:55
After looking at these three cases, we can see that
- 06:55 - 06:58
they have had an impact on special education.
- 07:00 - 07:02
These cases have played a significant role in the development
- 07:03 - 07:04
of special education laws.
- 07:06 - 07:09
They have not only benefited the students and families directly
- 07:09 - 07:12
involved in the case, but I have also impacted many
- 07:13 - 07:14
other students with disabilities.
- 07:16 - 07:21
These impacts include providing a free, appropriate and quality education
- 07:22 - 07:25
and the least restrictive environment with necessary support.
- 07:26 - 07:30
These cases may be helpful in preventing another student with
- 07:30 - 07:35
disabilities from being denied appropriate services and inclusive learning.